Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 152 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
But it may not matter in the end what the results end up being.

Re: APR Survey Update
From: Frawley, Brian (DNR)
We appreciate the comments provided by all reviewers. We received comments from 15 people.
We have addressed all the comments received and have prepared a final version of the
questionnaire. The comments received and the changes that we made are described below.
Many reviewers were concerned with the inclusion of all or parts of the following paragraph in the
questionnaire:
The intent of the proposed APRs is to protect young bucks from harvest; increase the overall
number of bucks; increase the number of 2½ year-old and older bucks available to hunters in the
region; and to increase hunter satisfaction.
Many reviewers felt that some information in this paragraph could potentially lead to biased
answers because the statements were either inaccurate or misleading. The reviewers stated the
proportion of bucks may increase but the overall number of buck may not increase. Furthermore,
hunter satisfaction may not improve for all hunters, especially for those hunters that could not take
bucks protected by APRs.
Consequently, we replaced this paragraph with the following sentence:
This proposal aims to protect most 1½ year old males by allowing the harvest of only those
antlered deer that have four or more antler points on one side, each one or more inches in length.
Some reviewers suggested two additions to clarify the proposal. The first suggestion was to state
that antler points need to be at least one inch long to count as legal points. The second
suggestion was to state that youth were exempt from APRs only during the youth season. We
made changes to address these comments.
One reviewer suggested that we remove the following two questions. These two questions were:

2. Do you own at least 5 acres of land in the area affected by the proposed regulations?
3. Do you farm in the area affected by the proposed regulations?
Both of these questions were requested by the NRC; thus, we did not alter the questions.
One reviewer requested that we allow respondents to select “no opinion” as an answer to the
question about supporting the proposed regulation. The NRC has already requested will only
provide “yes” and “no” as valid answers; thus, we did not change the wording.
We do not plan to release copies of the final questionnaire because we do not want to risk having
the final questionnaire circulated and causing confusion with the official survey. The samples for
both surveys have been selected, and we expect the questionnaires to be delivered in mid-
November.
It will take about three months to complete the APR survey; thus, we anticipate a report will be completed in March. Although the survey should be done in March, the NRC has committed to completing a thorough review of the effects of APR regulations. This review will not be completed before the APR survey is done. Therefore, even if the proposed APR regulations are supported by at least 66% of hunters, the NRC does not plan to make any regulation changes until the review of APRs has been completed.
Once again, thanks for your assistance.
Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,749 Posts
I think you are right that it won't matter. The entire state will be under some form of APRs soon anyhow.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,227 Posts
Que, sera, sera.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Ohub Campfire mobile app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,902 Posts
They should have used the exact same survey wording that was used for every APR survey, previous to the NW 12 survey.

The MDNR got their larger area to gather data with the NW12 regs. Maybe they will put in on hold for that 5 year tesr period

Hopefully this is a sign that the work of the non-apr activist's is having an effect. Maybe time to step up the pressure a little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,452 Posts
Thanks for posting this update
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,887 Posts
The excuses have already started, even though the antis got what they wanted.

No question a bunch of new flaws will be found with the survey.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,833 Posts
Everybody should hunt Iowa at least once.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,713 Posts
Why do you supposed that the last two questions were added by the NRC?

Do you think it is an added measure simply to understand statistically which hunters that own property and/or farm are in favor of/ oppose to APR's...?

Also, do you supposed those two questions are being asked by the NRC to further their study on the affects of APR regulations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
Everybody should hunt Iowa at least once.
I know you won't want to hear this but not everyone shares your idea of a good hunting experience. For a lot of folks deer hunting is important but so is trapping, fishing, smallgame hunting, on and on and our voice and opinions are just as important concerning deer hunting as yours.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,410 Posts
From post #9: "Why do you supposed that the last two questions were added by the NRC?

Do you think it is an added measure simply to understand statistically which hunters that own property and/or farm are in favor of/ oppose to APR's...?"



From post #10: "For a lot of folks deer hunting is important but so is trapping, fishing, smallgame hunting, on and on and our voice and opinions are just as important concerning deer hunting as yours."

From post #11: "5 acres or farm in the proposed area.....I see nothing about" do you hunt public land"

First, the poster of #9 asks for our supposition. Here’s mine: Those two questions, in my opinion, were added as a result of pressure from the MFB. Farm Bureau’s whine, or at least as it was represented by Rebecca Park in the Michigan Farm News, is that farmers had no voice in the APR survey, in that recipients were specifically ‘license buyers’ of a particular geography….and not farmers.

MFB’s objection is without merit. As has been posted here on other occassions, other DNR surveys of both farmers & hunters showed no statistically significant difference. Which makes sense because in my experience farmers make up a disproportionate component of hunter’s ranks. Farmers = Hunters.

But, it is a whine that the Lansing staffers can run up the flag pole to gin up their constituents and make ‘em think the home office really is fighting for the farmers ‘lost voice’. It’s window dressing. Or it is staffers who really are not on top of the deer game. IMHO.

Ps…..I would also offer as a ‘verifier’ of some sort, the comment in #11 that the NRC isn’t moved to query about the public land guys…..who comprise a rather dis-organized and hard-to-define group of voters, unlike farmers.
……………………................................................

Then the poster of #10…..specifically this complaint: “….our voice and opinions are just as important concerning deer hunting as yours.”

This poster is missing a critical point. Which is, a response to a survey is a voice, a single voice. It counts no more, nor any less than anyone elses.

But aside from such a survey…or for that matter, any ‘vote’ on most anything……there is a ranking in “voices” overall. And that ranking exists in the world of politics, activism, influence, and involvement. Frankly put, some voices are more important than others. And that is as it should be.

Those individual’s who get into the ring and articulate a position, address the criticism, attempt to persuade, persevere in their pursuit and, in short, try mightily to advance their beliefs with real sweat equity………..well, yes, THOSE voices ARE more important than those who simply sit at a keyboard and complain.

For me personally, I'm comfortable with …and long ago accepted…that real-world reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
faxxy,

Then the poster of #10…..specifically this complaint: “….our voice and opinions are just as important concerning deer hunting as yours.”

This poster is missing a critical point. Which is, a response to a survey is a voice, a single voice. It counts no more, nor any less than anyone elses.

But aside from such a survey…or for that matter, any ‘vote’ on most anything……there is a ranking in “voices” overall. And that ranking exists in the world of politics, activism, influence, and involvement. Frankly put, some voices are more important than others. And that is as it should be.

Those individual’s who get into the ring and articulate a position, address the criticism, attempt to persuade, persevere in their pursuit and, in short, try mightily to advance their beliefs with real sweat equity………..well, yes, THOSE voices ARE more important than those who simply sit at a keyboard and complain
Well, at least you're consistent and also wrong about the single voice thing. A response to a survey is only one voice if the results of the survey are never utilized as a decision making device. If they are used, then the single response represents however many people the survey designers dictate, i.e. 2000 surveys sent to represent all the hunters in the affected area.:evil:

Your post #12 brings to mind two quotes:

“When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.” Carnegie

and

"I learned thirty years ago that it is foolish to scold. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence.” Wanamaker

thanks for reading and have a reflective day

glen
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
From post #9: "Why do you supposed that the last two questions were added by the NRC?

Do you think it is an added measure simply to understand statistically which hunters that own property and/or farm are in favor of/ oppose to APR's...?"



From post #10: "For a lot of folks deer hunting is important but so is trapping, fishing, smallgame hunting, on and on and our voice and opinions are just as important concerning deer hunting as yours."

From post #11: "5 acres or farm in the proposed area.....I see nothing about" do you hunt public land"

First, the poster of #9 asks for our supposition. Here’s mine: Those two questions, in my opinion, were added as a result of pressure from the MFB. Farm Bureau’s whine, or at least as it was represented by Rebecca Park in the Michigan Farm News, is that farmers had no voice in the APR survey, in that recipients were specifically ‘license buyers’ of a particular geography….and not farmers.

MFB’s objection is without merit. As has been posted here on other occassions, other DNR surveys of both farmers & hunters showed no statistically significant difference. Which makes sense because in my experience farmers make up a disproportionate component of hunter’s ranks. Farmers = Hunters.

But, it is a whine that the Lansing staffers can run up the flag pole to gin up their constituents and make ‘em think the home office really is fighting for the farmers ‘lost voice’. It’s window dressing. Or it is staffers who really are not on top of the deer game. IMHO.

Ps…..I would also offer as a ‘verifier’ of some sort, the comment in #11 that the NRC isn’t moved to query about the public land guys…..who comprise a rather dis-organized and hard-to-define group of voters, unlike farmers.
……………………................................................

Then the poster of #10…..specifically this complaint: “….our voice and opinions are just as important concerning deer hunting as yours.”

This poster is missing a critical point. Which is, a response to a survey is a voice, a single voice. It counts no more, nor any less than anyone elses.

But aside from such a survey…or for that matter, any ‘vote’ on most anything……there is a ranking in “voices” overall. And that ranking exists in the world of politics, activism, influence, and involvement. Frankly put, some voices are more important than others. And that is as it should be.

Those individual’s who get into the ring and articulate a position, address the criticism, attempt to persuade, persevere in their pursuit and, in short, try mightily to advance their beliefs with real sweat equity………..well, yes, THOSE voices ARE more important than those who simply sit at a keyboard and complain.

For me personally, I'm comfortable with …and long ago accepted…that real-world reality.
Right now the brains of those opposed are whirling with ideas about how to say the survey was flawed. Of course, if the survey does not show 66% support, then it will be declared valid. And we will be told, "See, we told you so, the EMDH has spoken!"

But if it does show 66% support, you can bet that they will say that public land hunters were underrepresented in the returned surveys because there were no questions directed to them. Only wealthy landowners were queried. "I didn't know I was supposed to return the survey because I was not a landowner."

I can see it coming.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
When faced with nothing else pertinent and factually based, the language of the survey must be the only thing left.....LOL!

Who cares about the language? Send out the GD survey and ask.....Yes or No - Do you support a 4 point on one side antler restriction for both bucks in the SLP? Let the results fall where it may, and move on.

For those of you who are opposed to APR's and have nothing left to grasp at or cry about besides survey language.....good luck with that. I'm sure you (not directed at any individual person), and the other 50 members of the unmentioned forum can discuss over a glass of "whine" and feminine napkins - the absolute horror of not being able to shoot a buck with less than a 3-4 antler points on one side and how that correlates with the "end of deer hunting as we know it".:yikes:

Something tells me we might have to go on lock-down if this survey gets 62-65% approval rate and still gets implemented by the NRC. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,902 Posts
Something tells me we might have to go on lock-down if this survey gets 62-65% approval rate and still gets implemented by the NRC. :lol:
I am thinking that we could expect the same, If it falls short and is not implemented....Or is it does get 66% and is rejected or watered down by the NRC.;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
I am thinking that we could expect the same, If it falls short and is not implemented....Or is it does get 66% and is rejected or watered down by the NRC.;)
LOL! Watered down with what? Instead of 4 point restriction in the SLP, a 3 point restriction? Instead of a 3 point restriction in the NLP, a 2 point restriction? If so, go ahead and recommend it.......Either one is an improvement over what we have currently. Let them "water it down".

Do you honestly think that those in favor of APR's would actually complain if it was watered down by the above? If so, you seem to forget that a 3 point rule was what was originally proposed and rejected by the DNR, not the sponsoring group. A watered down version is not a win for those opposed in the least, no matter how hard you try convincing yourself of such.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Hoping to get a survey, wondering if planting food plots count as farming, this proud,poor land manager would place his x on a NO! Wishing everyone would have a chance to vote. I know that is not going to happen, so sad that a few folks get say what affects so many. gibby:)
 
1 - 20 of 152 Posts
Top